Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9388847
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Bruce Wanzo, Jr. v. Christian Pfeiffer
No. 9388847 · Decided April 3, 2023
No. 9388847·Ninth Circuit · 2023·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
April 3, 2023
Citation
No. 9388847
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE WANZO, Jr., No. 20-56072
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:19-cv-05764-JLS-SP
v.
CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 30, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN, GOULD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Bruce Wanzo, Jr. appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that it was untimely pursuant to
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 2244(d)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we
affirm.
Wanzo does not contest the district court’s dismissal of his claims
challenging his 1990 conviction as untimely and has therefore forfeited any
objection to the dismissal of those claims. See Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797
F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986).
Wanzo failed to raise any constitutional challenge to the Los Angeles
County Superior Court’s 2019 denial of his request for resentencing under former
section 1170.95 of the California Penal Code1 in his federal habeas petition. Nor
did he raise any such challenge in response to a show cause order of the magistrate
judge, in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, or in
his motion for a Certificate of Appealability (COA). Therefore, Wanzo has
forfeited any such challenge, and we affirm on that basis. See White v. Klitzkie,
281 F.3d 920, 921–22 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny as moot Wanzo’s motion for
judicial notice of his state court records, Dkt 25.
AFFIRMED.
1
The statute was renumbered as section 1172.6 of the California Penal
Code.
2
Plain English Summary
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRUCE WANZO, Jr., No.
Key Points
01COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRUCE WANZO, Jr., No.
03Staton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 30, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN, GOULD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
04appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that it was untimely pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C.
Frequently Asked Questions
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRUCE WANZO, Jr., No.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Bruce Wanzo, Jr. v. Christian Pfeiffer in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on April 3, 2023.
Use the citation No. 9388847 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.